Introduction

The is an experiment in detecting the challenges to comprehension
in formulating declarations with different degrees of uncertainty -- and the
consequent potential for encompassing the diversity of perspectives

Note that the source material for certain levels tends to be associated
with particular philosophical perspectives but an effort has been made
to "tune" the pattern into an integrated whole. The wording is unfortunately
heavy in order to keep some link to such sources and because the pattern
is designed as a continuing challenge to comprehension -- including the
author's! The result is far from satisfactory.

Levels 1 to 10

Level #01 : Inadequacy of formulations

1. No single formulation (including this one), nor any logically
integrated set of formulations, adequately encompasses the nature of the
development process. Every position or formulation is therefore suspect.
When it is formulated within a domain of unquestioned consensus, this potential
doubt is inactive, thus establishing a boundary of uncritical discourse
which inhibits development.

Level #02 : Opposition/Disagreement

2.1 New initiatives, including this one, are formulated by taking
and establishing a particular position in opposition to whatever is conceived
as potentially denying it. The nature of the initiative is partly determined
by the way in which the challenge or initial absence of any opposing position
is perceived and the possible nature of the response. It is the immediacy
with which the challenge is perceived that empowers the initiative.

2.2 The taking of a position as a result of a new initiative
engenders or activates a formulation which is its denial. Every formulation
is therefore necessarily matched by an initiative which is incompatible
with it, or opposed to it, or takes an essentially different direction
from it. This opposition is fundamentally unmediated and as such cannot
be observed or described. It can only be comprehended through identification
with one of the opposed positions.

Level #03 : Dialectic synthesis

3.1 A form, through the affirmation of its existence, exerts
pressure in response to its context which acts as an impulse for the continual
transformation of the latter. As antecedent of any such transformation,
it subjects any outcome to constraints. Tothe extent that the nature of
the pressure on its context is unrecognized, any action initiated is distorted
or unregulated in its impact on the context.

3.2 A form existing in the present stands in opposition to other
pre-existing forms within the same context. As a result it is constrained
by them to be of the necessary scale and proportion to oppose the pre-existing
forms most dynamically. Within a given context, however, an opposing form
of a particular type may be engendered which has been superseded in other
co-present contexts. Forms corresponding to different stages of development
may thus re-emerge and co-exist if the communication between contexts is
obstructed in any way. To the extent that ignorance concerning this obstruction
prevails, contexts become progressively more restricted, such that the
dynamism of the opposition of the forms engendered within them diminished
with a corresponding increase in the inertia or resistance associated with
the least developed forms.

3.3 Opposition between two forms tends to give rise to a new
form which has properties characteristic of both of them as well as new
mediating properties unique to itself. The new form interrelates or harmonizes
the original opposing forms. It reconciles them at a new level of expression
of unity, whether or not they then disappear. The potential existence of
the new form is therefore partially implicit (although incomplete) in each
of the opposing forms prior to its generation. It thus functions as a stimulus
or attractant by providing a pattern for their interaction and the organization
of its outcome. Once created, the form will in its own turn prove inadequate
and be opposed and superseded by more adequate forms whose nature it partially
defines. The attraction of a particular form may however prevent the energetic
development of this process.

Level #04 : Developmental interaction

4.1 In a set of forms, one form acquires a dominant status at
any one time. As such it establishes the formal pattern of relationships
between other forms by observing and distinguishing their elements, and
interpreting their significance. Any infringement of this monopoly of power
is met by a conscious reaction on the part of those associated with it
who strive for position within the framework it supplies.

4.2 In a set of forms, one or more forms acquire a recessive
or sub-dominant status at any one time. As such they are characterized
by both minimal inherent organization and high inertial resistance to transformation.
Any attempt to change those associated with such forms is met by unconscious
reaction.

4.3 In a set containing a dominant and a dominated form, the
pattern of relationships governed by the dominant form proves progressively
more inadequate as a framework for handling the accumulation of new information
and experience. Inconsistencies, contradictions and incompleteness gradually
accumulate and become increasingly apparent as conditions change. The dominant
form alone does not contain the variety to encompass and control thecomplex
conditions to which it is exposed. The value of the recessive or inferior
form becomes correspondingly apparent by contrast. The unconscious or impulsive
actions of those associated with both forms serve merely to aggravate the
condition and to highlight the absence of a form providing any adequate
sense of direction or functional orientation for the whole.

4.4 In a set containing a dominant and an inferior form, and
characterized by contradictions, adequate control is usually maintained
through the momentum of working processes governed by the dominant form.
Any deviation is corrected by a conscious integrative action on the part
of those associated with that form. As the contradictions cease to be held
in restraint in this way, the source of control is effectively transferred
from the dominant form to the inferior form which thus emerges to take
its place. To the extent that this transfer of control is resisted, the
change is likely to be violent rather than smooth.

Level #05 : Constraints on existence

5.1 For a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance,
it must bear a consciously recognized relationship to a context. If this
relationship is ignored the form effectively merges into the context and
cannot be distinguished from it due to the absence of any recognized boundaries
or limits.

5.2 For a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance,
it must be sufficiently general to be perceived as relevant to other variants
of the phenomenon detached from immediate perception within the domain
of discourse. If it is so general that it is perceived as relating to too
wide a range of phenomena, then its significance is lost. Or, alternatively,
it becomes so detached from immediate perception that its significance
becomes fragmented into seemingly unrelated facets which arouse differing
degrees of attachment or rejection.

5.3 For a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance,
it must be perceived as relating to tangible phenomena of immediate relevance.
But if this relationship is so strong as to be perceived as merely a reflection
of those phenomena or identical with them, then its significance is lost
or engenders contradictions, confusion and associated conflict.

5.4 For a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance,
it must be perceived as sufficiently complex to encompass the complexity.
If this is too much greater than that of the phenomena, its significance
is either lost or a faith in the form may be engendered which is then valued
for its own sake, independently of the phenomena, and possibly as being
in some way superior to them.

5.5 For a form to exist and acquire any momentary significance,
it must be sufficiently simple to be a comprehensible vehicle for intention.
But if it is perceived as too simple (or trivial) the significance is lost.
The unchannelled intention then reinforces inactivity or degenerates into
sublimated forms of action.

Level #06 : Coherence through renewal

6.1 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires a focused reaffirmation of the existence of the elements
which ensure its integrity. To the extent that this reaffirmation is lacking,
knowledge of its structure is eroded and the boundaries of the form become
confused or dissolve.

6.2 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires redefinition of the form to distinguish it from the superficial
features of encroaching alternative forms with which it interacts. These
may appear more attractive if concentration is relaxed. To the extent that
this transformative process is lacking, aspects of the alternative definitions
may be partially incorporated, thus progressively destroying the form as
an integrated structure by formation of a hybrid or an agglomerate.

6.3 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires repeated effort to understand the essential or general
characteristics of the form which underlie any particular set of superficial
features and thus not bound by them. To the extent that this understanding
is lacking, the superficial features condemn the form as unnecessarily
constraining, unsatisfactory, with consequent reactions.

6.4 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires periodic detached recognition of its wider significance
and how its development can best be controlled in relation to this. To
the extent that this recognition is lacking, transformation of the form
is blocked because of the narrow perspective with which it is viewed.

6.5 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires recognition of the contextual structuring constraints,
qualitative characteristics and challenges which ensure its stability,
and in terms of which it may be transformed. To the extent that this recognition
is lacking, the stability of the form is undermined by doubts concerning
its present relevance.

6.6 Sustaining the coherence of a form through its continual
renewal requires adaptation of insights concerning its possible development
to a realistic strategy for its actual development. To the extent that
this adaptation is lacking, any strategies formulated will be impractical
and will result in maldevelopment of the form.

Level #07 : Modes of change

7.1 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is through the wilful destruction of a prevailing form, whether
or not a new or more adequate form can be substituted in its stead. This
approach is favoured when the existing form is perceived as essentially
static and an inhibitor of any form of dynamism or growth.

7.2 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is through supportive interaction (dialogue) with the various
perspectives formulated within the community concerned. Through such participative
involvement on the part of the change agent as a sympathetic catalyst,
a new community viewpoint can develop naturally from its existing foundations
and be transformed. This approach is favoured when existing methods are
perceived as implying destructive discontinuity or the imposition of inappropriate
external formulations which would do violence to the community's growth
and thus effectively retard it.

7.3 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is through the formulation of a new all-encompassing philosophy
(paradigm, theory, or strategy) as the reference framework in terms of
which change can be initiated and undertaken. This approach is favoured
when the diversity of existing initiatives is perceived as breeding confusion,
dissipating resources, and undermining any possibility of a new level of
collective achievement for the community as a whole.

7.4 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is by enabling a more sensitive recognition of the variety
of existing forms and the manner in which, through their various (and possibly
discordant) interactions, they already constitute a rich and harmonious
pattern saturated with meaning at a deeper level of significance. This
approach is favoured when there is concern that new forms advocated are
insensitive to and detached from the inherent harmony in those which have
already been organically integrated into the tissue of lived reality.

7.5 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is through the formulation of laws and definitions concerning
observable processes on the basis of controlled investigation of their
properties. Through such forms control is obtained over the processes which
can then be used to restructure the environment according to their possibilities.
This approach is favoured when there is concern that the processes of change
are clothed in superstition, mystification, and are attributed solely to
chance, or accident, or inexplicable agents acting spontaneously beyond
the control of man.

7.6 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective emerges by renunciation of forms based upon the spatio-temporal
world in favour of other factors and frames of reference to which appeal
may be made. This approach is favoured when there is recognition that manipulative
control of particular sub-systems of the external physical environment
is only partially satisfactory (even when it is complete), and that less
tangible dimensions need to be taken into account. Any such forms are frequently
at least partially based on transformations of the inner world of the individual
as it relates to the external world.

7.7 Under certain conditions the only form of change perceived
as effective is to design configurations through which the full range of
existing forms in opposition to each other can function creatively as complementaries,
compensating for each otherslimitations and excesses. This approach is
favoured when there is concern that the various approaches to change are
functioning together so discordantly that some new form of dynamic order
is required which provides a context for their different, and essentially
incompatible, orientations.

Level #08 : Constraints on change

8.1 In assessing any apparent need for change, care is required
to avoid mistaken formulations of the environmental condition. These can
lead, for example, to an impetuous response or action for action's sake,
from the consequences of which recovery may be difficult.

8.2 In formulating and planning any change initiative, care is
required in selecting the point and manner of intervention. The constraints
rarely offer the desired freedom of action and may easily be used as a
focus for distracting dissatisfaction.

8.3 In formulating the nature of the change initiative, care
is required in adapting any representation of it to avoid the temporary
benefits of pleasing whoever is identified with the current condition or
failing to acknowledge the difficulties to be encountered in changing it.
These difficulties include weaknesses in those associated with the change
initiative itself.

8.4 In implementing a change initiative as formulated, care is
required that the initiative is not itself distorted by close association
with the adverse conditions to which it responds or weakened by avoiding
unpleasant decisions which have to be made to maintain the integrity of
the response.

8.5 In sustaining a change initiative as formulated, care is
required in ensuring its equilibrium with the intensification and expansion
of activity due to confidence from successful experience with any adverse
conditions encountered and with the distractions of contentment with positive
achievements.

8.6 Once a change initiative has achieved its maximum deployment,
care is required in responding to the limitations on any further development.
The original direction of effort may well be deflected in the pursuit of
further success, especially in response to any accumulation of negative
assessments.

8.7 Once the essential task of a change initiative is approaching
completion, care is required in deciding on the termination of activities
as originally intended. It may seem natural to continue the activities
or to institutionalize them. Positive encouragement to do so may be received
from all concerned. Succumbing to these pressures creates the risk of entrapment
by a pattern of activity which it may then prove difficult to terminate
at any time.

8.8 After a change initiative has been terminated, care is required
in evaluating the activities and the achievements in the light of the original
intent in order to avoid subsequent dependence on them.

Level #09 : Implementation of a transformation
process

9.1 Implementation of a transformative process subject to realworld
hazards requires assembly of the necessary operational resources of an
adequate quality. To the extent that assembly is impossible, or their quality
is inadequate, the process will be handicapped and partially controlled
by the nature of those deficiencies.

9.2 Implementation of a transformative process subject to realworld
hazards requires precise and energetic clarification of the succeeding
stages of the process. To the extent that this clarification is lacking,
action will be confused and momentum will be insufficient to overcome unforeseen
problems.

9.3 Implementation of a transformative process subject to realworld
hazards requires recognition of deviation or conflict between resources
assembled and process planning in the light of independent critical questions
concerning the implementation process. To the extent that this recognition
is lacking, or that the questions are poorly conceived, further implementation
(together with any corrective action) will result in an imbalanced process
vulnerable to disruption.

9.4 Implementation of a transformative process subject to real-world
hazards requires attentive preparation of the assembled elements to be
processed. To the extent that this attentiveness is lacking, details of
the preparation will be carelessly omitted or improperly executed thus
jeopardizing the success of the operation.

9.5 Implementation of a transformative process subject to real-world
hazards necessitates a controlled manipulation of the prepared elements
into an emerging configuration. To the extent that this manipulation is
improperly controlled or that the correspondence between the action taken
and the knowledge of the action actually required is otherwise inadequate,
the results will be unsatisfactory.

9.6 Implementation of a transformative process subject to real-world
hazards requires dispassionate evaluation of the form emerging from the
process in the light of the original intention and the current circumstances.
To the extent that this evaluation is inadequate (and no corrective action
is taken), the product may either not correspond to the original intention
or be inappropriate to current possibilities for using it.

9.7 Implementation of a transformative process subject to real-world
hazards requires that the emergent product be appropriately detached from
the process which gave rise to it. To the extent that this separation is
inadequate, or the relationship between the product and the process is
otherwise confused, the resultant dependency relationship will jeopardize
the value of the product.

9.8 Implementation of a transformative process subject toreal-world
hazards requires controlled delivery of the product to its originally intended
setting in the face of possible reactions against it. To the extent that
there is over-sensitivity to such reactions, the delivery cannot be completed
thus jeopardizing the original intent.

9.9 Implementation of a transformative process subject to real-world
hazards requires an appropriate attitude on completion of the process to
ensure that it is evaluated within its proper context. To the extent that
this attitude is lacking, efforts may then be made to associate either
the product or the process to other contexts and initiatives. This distorts
the originally intended significance of the initiative and runs the risk
of confusing any new initiatives.

Level #10 : Endurance of a form

10.1 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its built-in ability
to recognize the probable consequences of initiatives it determines and
thus ensure relationships to other formulations which are supportive of
their mutual development. To the extent that this recognition is lacking,
destructive initiatives emerge with ultimately negative consequences for
the development of the original form.

10.2 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its built-in ability
to recognize the determining causes of developments in its environment
and thus establish supportive relationships for the development of other
forms on the basis of its own experience. To the extent that this recognition
is lacking, the form develops parasitic or exploitative relationships with
other forms which are ultimately detrimental to its own development.

10.3 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize the characteristic initiatives and responses engendered by
other forms in order, by exercise of discrimination, to determine those
with which a mutually beneficial association is possible. To the extend
that this recognition is lacking, the formulation is continually drawn
into illusory or mutually conflicting relationships with other forms, in
an uncontrollable manner which provides no stable foundation for its own
development and effectively conceals its possibility.

10.4 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize the developmental potential of other forms in order to adapt
appropriately to such alternative perspectives for its own further development.
To the extent that this recognition is lacking, the potential of such alternative
forms is misrepresented, thus undermining the future adaptability of the
form and the refinement of its own development goal.

10.5 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize the different levels or capacities by which other forms may
be characterized in order to relate appropriately to them to further mutual
development. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, any relationships
risk entrapment in apparent contradictions and in inappropriate responses
to formswhich stand in active opposition. In such circumstances the form
may simply serve to spread dissension and blind awareness to particular
expressions of a form.

10.6 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize the pathways and goals of different modes of development characteristic
of other forms and to adapt appropriately to an environment with such contrasting
possibilities. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, other forms
are actively condemned, often with considerable prejudice. The power and
development of the form is then severely handicapped by the distortion
and fragmentation of the actions it determines into rigidly polarized opposition
to other forms.

10.7 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize, through some process of detachment, those of its features
which need to be gradually abandoned and those which need to be reinforced.
To the extent that this recognition is lacking, rigid attachment to an
unchanging form deflects any inherent dynamism into superficial matters
of little consequence.

10.8 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recall earlier stages in its development and the manner in which weaknesses
were progressively eliminated. To the extent that this recollection is
lacking, the form is unable to sustain any method for its own transformation
and the necessary confidence is instead displaced into reinforcing attachment
to existing weaknesses.

10.9 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize the probable future states of forms and the probable circumstances
of their termination. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, the
form tends to become the vehicle for negative intentions towards the positive
achievements associated with other forms, rather than channelling that
intention to reinforce its own developmental momentum.

10.10 The endurance of a form is conditioned by its inbuilt ability
to recognize in other forms the weaknesses to which they have developed
an appropriate resistance. To the extent that this recognition is lacking,
the form becomes a vehicle for the development of destructive misperceptions
which hinder any ability either to abandon the weaknesses they have overcome
or to free other forms from such obstacles to their own development.

Levels 11 to 20

Level #11 : Empowerment and importance of a
form

11.1 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of constructive or destructive action with which it is associated
and the manner whereby they are distinguished.

11.2 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of enrichening or impoverishing action with which it is associated.

11.3 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of protection or exposure with which it is associated.

11.4 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of assistance or obstruction with which it is associated.

11.5 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of bias or lack of bias with which it is associated.

11.6 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of security or danger with which it is associated.

11.7 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of confidence or doubt with which it is associated.

11.8 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of consolation or dejection with which it is associated.

11.9 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined by
the degree of inspiration and reinforcement with which it is associated.

11.10 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined
by the quality of remedial advice with which it is associated.

11.11 The empowerment and importance of a form is determined
by the power of the subtle qualities with which it is associated.

Level #12 : Harmoniously transformative controlled
relationship

12.1 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by forceful spontaneous initiatives
appropriately guided by an implicit sense of opportunity and constraint.
Such action opens up viable new possibilities. If inappropriately controlled,
it may be excessively violent, misguided, unfruitful or merely self-serving.

12.2 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with it environment is characterized by a capacity to respond receptively
to a comprehensive range of external initiatives by providing appropriate
frameworks within which they can be embodied and consolidated. To the extent
this capacity is lacking, such receptivity may be over-loaded leading to
selective resistance, non-response or alternatively to their cooptation.

12.3 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by a capacity to interrelate initiatives,
creatively and explicitly, with contexts within which they can be further
developed. To the extent this capacity is lacking, any such catalytic mediation
becomes diffuse and lacking in continuity. Apparent contradictions are
then a source of confusion rather than being perceived as aspects of an
intricate pattern of stimulating diversity.

12.4 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by the gradualemergence of higher
order organization in response to initiatives and constraints. If such
emergence is absent or inhibited, the form engenders actions which are
increasingly incapable of containing the forces to which they respond.

12.5 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment necessitates a degree of organization which enables
it to respond fully, in an integrated uncompromising forceful manner, to
a full range of external events of which it remains independent. To the
extent that this capacity is inappropriately developed, such organization
is characterized by domination, self-appreciation, and misuse of power.

12.6 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment necessitates intuitive readjustment of implicit assumptions
in order to renew the capacity to respond appropriately to events in context.
To the extent that this capacity is lacking, any response is inhibited
or focused on superficial detail.

12.6 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment necessitates intuitive readjustment of implicit assumptions
in order to renew the capacity to respond appropriately to events in context.
To the extent that this capacity is lacking, any response is inhibited
or focused on superficial detail.

12.7 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by a capacity for detached evaluation
of past development from a perspective which provides both an intuitive
balance between relevant factors and a sense of integrative possibilities.
To the extent that this capacity is lacking, evaluation of external factors
is negative or indecisive thus hindering further development.

12.8 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by the capacity to respond spontaneously
to higher order goals and possibilities even if the prevailing set of lower
order goals and possibilities (with which it is identified) must be abandoned
in order to do so. To the extent that the capacity for this transformation
is lacking, the lower order goals and possibilities are distorted and reinforced
to the detriment of further development.

12.9 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by the spontaneous initiation of
higher order processes which are focused in order to transform the operation
of pre-existing lower order processes by which it is governed. To the extend
that this capacity is inappropriately developed, any processes initiated
are misdirected to the detriment of further development.

12.10 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by an explicit pattern of control
processes governing future possibilities, or current needs and opportunities.
To the extent that this capacityis inappropriately developed, there is
a tendency to over-control which is detrimental to further development.

12.11 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by the capacity to engender appropriate
design in the light of significant new insights which bring possibilities
and constraints into focus in an unforeseen and fruitful manner, thus facilitating
effective action for their development. To the extent that this capacity
is inappropriately developed, it results in automatic negative reaction
to external initiatives and conditions, to the detriment of their further
developments.

12.12 A form in a harmoniously transformative controlled relationship
with its environment is characterized by a response pattern of reconciliation
between all potential initiatives or conflicts. This unifying pattern thus
acts as a stabilizing influence ensuring continuity, particularly between
higher and lower-order processes. To the extend that this capacity is inappropriately
developed, the response pattern becomes confused, reacting inadequately
to spurious conditions.

Level #13 : Creative renewal

13.1 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any impotence and enfeeblement of action associated with the form in
its current mode.

13.2 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any fragmented or inconsistent action associated with the form in its
current mode.

13.3 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any fragmented or inconsistent action associated with the form in its
current mode.

13.4 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any non-viable products of action associated with the form in its current
mode.

13.5 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any dependence and powerlessness of the form in its current mode.

13.6 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any rigidity or crystallization of the form in its current mode.

13.7 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any impracticality or shortsightedness of action associated with the
form in its current mode.

13.8 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any sense of futility associated with the form in its current mode,
or to any (consequent) self-destructive processes.

13.9 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative responseto
any apathy or pessimism associated with the form in its current mode.

13.10 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any unpredictability or uncontrollability associated with the form in
its current mode.

13.11 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any action associated with the form becoming narrowly focused as an
end in itself.

13.12 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to any corruption or dissolution of the form in its current mode.

13.13 Renewal is dependent on the emergence of a creative response
to the total disappearance of the form in its current mode.

Level #14 : Cycle of development processes

14.1 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by static, unchanging forms.

14.2 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by the breakdown of forms into their component elements.

14.3 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by the coalescence of forms through which a new form is engendered.

14.4 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by the harmonious interaction of forms which retain their
identity.

14.5 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by a unified, continuous pattern of forms.

14.6 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by a diversity of separate, discrete forms.

14.7 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by specific conflictual relationships between forms.

14.8 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by qualitatively significant undefinable relationships between
forms.

14.9 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by chance-determined forms.

14.10 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by forms which result as a natural and predictable consequence
of those processes.

14.11 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by forms whose existence in the spatio-temporal world is
self-explanatory.

14.12 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by forms whose existence cannot be adequately explained in
terms of the spatio-temporal frame of reference.

14.13 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by fluidity, turbulence and chaos.

14.14 The cycle of development processes includes extreme phases
characterized by ordered systems and well-defined patterns.

Level #15 : Construction and development of
form

15.1 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires direct or indirect observation of empirical facts,
whether events, processes, or phenomena.

15.2 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development that requires appropriate procedures of measurement of empirical
quantitative can be obtained.

15.3 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires appropriate procedures for the design and interpretation
of significant experiments.

15.4 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires appropriate procedures of empirical generalization
and descriptive classification to organize empirical data in a preliminary
way in preparation for systematic classification.

15.5 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires appropriate procedures whereby explanatory results
can be represented.

15.6 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires the use of conceptual elements, whether characteristic
abstractions, terminology or techniques, which constitute the intellectual
keys by which phenomena are made intelligible.

15.7 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires hypothesis formation, namely postulation through creative
insight of a conceptual model based on assumptions concerning existing
experimental observations or measurements.

15.8 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires recognition of a problem which appears susceptible
to solution by use, or extension, of available techniques.

15.9 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its future
development requires the possible adjustment orreplacement of a conceptual
model as a result of new observations or measurements.

15.10 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires the selection of a particular style of explanatory
procedure required for the application of a given group of concepts.

15.11 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires use of formal or mathematical elements, whether
computational, construction or analytic procedures.

15.12 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires use of techniques of formal transformation,
whether formalization (reduction to relations while disregarding the nature
of the related) or axiomatization (tracing of entailments back to accepted
axioms).

15.13 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires validation of a conceptual model by checking
its predictions against observations or measurements using techniques of
confirmation, corroboration or falsification.

15.14 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires the production of rigorous formal definitions
of the validity, probability, degree of confirmation, and other evidential
relations involved in the judgement of a logical argument.

15.15 Construction of form and the logical prediction of its
future development requires the use of a formal propositional system having
a definite, essential logical structure, namely a formal scheme of propositions
and axioms bound together by logical relations.

Level #16 : Values and assumptions

16.1 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that the form is without imperfection.

16.2 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that the form is an end in itself.

16.3 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that there is a permanent dimension to the form.

16.4 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that the form is composed of independent external
features.

16.5 Recognition of the values underlying a formhighlights any
unfounded assumption that the inadequacies of the form have no cause or
are their own cause.

16.6 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights anyunfounded
assumption that the inadequacies of the form arise from irrelevant causes.

16.7 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that the inadequacies of the form are only due to
one cause, independent of conditions or secondary circumstances.

16.8 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that the inadequacies of the form are necessarily
permanent.

16.9 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights any
unfounded assumption that it is impossible to generate an adequate form.

16.10 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights
any unfounded assumption that the form as achieved is adequate, can be
accepted, and that further effort to generate a more adequate form should
cease.

16.11 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights
any unfounded assumption that the most abstract forms constitute the ultimate
achievement.

16.12 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlight any
unfounded assumption that, however perfect the form engendered, its inadequacy
will eventually become apparent.

16.13 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlight any
unfounded assumption that there is no method adequate to the current circumstances.

16.14 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights
any unfounded assumption that there is no suitable method, or pattern of
methods, whereby acentric significance can be effectively perceived or
reflected in a form.

16.15 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights
any unfounded assumption supporting the practice of methods which yield
no useful results.

16.16 Recognition of the values underlying a form highlights
any unfounded assumption that there are no effective remedies for the inadequacies
of the existing form.

Level #17 : Relationship potential of a form

17.1 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on its relative imperfection. Absence of imperfection
reduces dependency arising from formal incompleteness thus removing any
basis for interdependency. However, the nature of the imperfection strongly
influences the quality of interdependence with which the form can be associated.

17.2 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on the recognition that the form is not an end in
itself.

17.3 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition of the impermanence of the form. The
larger the set of forms within which relationships may exist, the greater
the probability that such relationships will involve patterns of formal
development and transformation in which any invariance will be at a higher
level of abstraction than that of the form as originally recognized.

17.4 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition that the form is itself the integrated
development of interdependent forms.

17.5 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extend to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition of the causes of the perceived inadequacies
of the form. Such recognition establishes a relationship between the form
and other forms. However the nature of the perceived cause strongly influences
the quality of interdependence with which the form can be associated.

17.6 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition that the inadequacies of the form
arise from relevant causes and not from causes irrelevant to the nature
of the form.

17.7 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition that the inadequacies of the form
are due to a multiplicity of causes themselves dependent on conditions
and secondary circumstances.

17.8 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition that the inadequacies of the form
and their causes are necessarily of a temporary nature.

17.9 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on conviction that it is possible to generate a more
adequate form. By focusing attention on possible adaptation of the form,
its evolving relationship to other forms thus becomes evident.

17.10 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on continuing effort togenerate a more adequate form
and refusal, as adequate, of what has already been achieved. This ensures
that the form is placed in a context of forms in process of transformation
rather than in isolation.

17.11 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition that elaboration and retention of
the most abstract form does not constitute the ultimate achievement. To
the extent that this recognition is lacking, any such form, despite its
sophistication, is a hindrance to the dynamics of further development.

17.12 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on conviction that forms can be engendered which
will not subsequently come to be perceived as inadequate. Such forms must
necessarily incorporate and counterbalance the factors which make for the
emergence of inadequacy in an evolving set of forms.

17.13 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on conviction that there is a method, or pattern
of methods, which can be followed and is adequate to current circumstances.
To the extent that this conviction is lacking, it is unlikely that significant
relationships between forms will be recognized.

17.14 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on conviction that a suitable method, or pattern
of methods, may emerge whereby acentric significance can be effectively
perceived or reflected in form. To the extent that this conviction is lacking,
methods used will continue to be centred on particular approaches which
fail to take account simultaneously of insights emerging from those centred
on other approaches.

17.15 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on recognition of the futility of practising methods
which yield no fruitful results. To the extent that this recognition is
lacking, the methods pursued will limit the range and richness of relationships
which can be established between forms.

17.16 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms,
is directly dependent on conviction that there are effective remedies for
the inadequacies of the existing form.

17.17 The relationship potential of a form to other forms, namely
the extent to which it is assimilated into a larger set of differing forms
depends on (intuitive) recognition of the permeability and variability
of the boundary of that form.

Level #18 : Inadequate transformation attempts

18.1 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the assembly or mobilization of operational resources in accordance
with a predetermined concept. This tends to engender either subservience
or considerable resistance and alienation of potential support. Such forcing
initiatives may well prevent formation of linkages vital to the future
integrity of the operation and may lead to its early abortion or a considerable
limitation in its scope.

18.2 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as allowing operational resources to assemble, as and when they may,
according tot he emergent processes of their initial interaction. This
tends to result in considerable confusion, seldom with any creative operational
outcome of other than a superficial nature. Such initiatives then lack
coherence, continuity and any capacity for endurance.

18.3 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be underminded
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the imposition of a programme of operations. This immediately splits
the resources mobilized into the empowered and the disempowered. The strength
of the former then tends to be overestimated, whilst their weaknesses are
under estimated, and the full contribution of the disempowered is blocked.
The imposed programme is never called into question. This procedure further
alienates potential support and increases the risk that the operation will
go out of control if circumstances later arise in which the blocked or
alienated resources are essential.

18.4 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the dependence on spontaneous, participative self-organization
of operational programmes. This tends to result in uncertainty and conflicting
activities which reinforce lack of coherence, of continuity, and of any
capacity for endurance. Any programmes which emerge are immediately called
into question.

18.5 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the reassessment of objectives and direction through detailed analysis
following the initiation of the operation, this tends to be a destructive,
unfruitful exercise providing little more than an intellectual framework
as support for programme integration. The exercise then serves to alienate
involvement in the operation, rather than to uncover new reserves of support
for it.

18.6 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the reassessment of objectives and direction through resensitizing
processes, affirmation, and celebration of solidarity, following the initiation
of the operation. This tendsto emphasize the dimensions of consensus (whether
intangible or superficial) at the expense of the dimensions of disagreement
(often specific and fundamental). Operational coherence is then dependent
on the former without any adequate framework to balance the issues raised
by the latter.

18.7 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the preparation or partial destructuring of the operation (for
subsequent transformation), according to a rigid procedure unresponsive
to contextual feedback. This tends to result in the accumulation of conditions
which disrupt the procedure. The operation can then only be continued by
overriding such obstacles or by limiting its original scope. Both solutions
generate difficulties necessitating future operations for their elimination.

18.8 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the preparation or partial destructuring of the raw materials of
the operation (for subsequent transformation) according to a procedure
totally responsive to contextual feedback. This tends to result in the
erosion (and eventual dissipation) of the procedure whose impetus is then
absorbed into the contextual processes.

18.9 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the transformation of the raw materials of the operation by a series
of precisely defined (and reproducible) changes of structure. This tends
to limit such operations to those of essentially mechanical scope and renders
them inapplicable to transformations of perception, attitude or value.

18.10 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as the transformation of the raw materials of the operation by a set
of intuitive, irreproducible processes. This tends to limit such operations
to those of essentially intangible scope. This renders them inapplicable
to transformations of tangible conditions which should reflect such changes
and give them a measure of permanence.

18.11 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as evaluating the transformation in terms of the quality of the results
achieved, without taking into consideration the viability of the process
as a means to that end. This facilitates the emergence of processes whose
by-products set the stage for later difficulties.

18.12 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as evaluating the transformation in terms of the viability of the
process, without taking into consideration the quality of the results achieved
(if any). This facilitates the emergence of processes carried out as an
end in themselves, but which generate little of permanent benefit to thecontext
in which they take place.

18.13 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as abrupt separation of the emergent product from the process which
gives rise to it. Such sudden separation endangers the product in its final
phases of dependency on the process.

18.14 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as continuing dependence of the emergent product on the process which
gives rise to it. This pattern of dependency endangers the ultimate self-sufficiency
of the product.

18.15 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as delivery of the final product to the originally intended setting
in a manner insensitive to reactions from that setting. This tends to lead
to the early rejection of the product.

18.16 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as delivery of the final product to the originally intended setting
in a manner overly sensitive to reactions from that setting. Unless the
normal resistance to new products is overcome, this tends to prevent the
product from being delivered.

18.17 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as complete rejection of any subsequent evaluation of the process
or association with it. This tends to deprive subsequent initiatives from
any value of the process as a learning experience.

18.18 Attempts at the transformation of form tend to be undermined
by destructive energy-dissipating conflict between methodological extremes
such as continuing identification with the process after its completion.
This tends to distort any subsequent initiatives.

Level #19 : Qualitative transformation

19.1 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the assembly or mobilization of, in
accordance with a predetermined concept.

19.2 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) allowing operational resources to assemble
naturally of their own accord.

19.3 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the imposition of a programme of operations.

19.5 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the reassessment of objectives and
direction through detailed analysis, following the initiation of the operation.

19.6 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the reassessment of objectives and
direction through resensitizing processes, following the initiation of
the operation.

19.7 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the preparation or partial restructuring
of the elements of the operation, according to a rigid procedure unresponsive
to contextual feedback.

19.8 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the preparation or partial restructuring
of the elements of the operation, according to a procedure totally responsive
to contextual feedback.

19.9 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the transformation of the elements
of the operation by a series of precisely defined changes of structure.

19.10 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) the transformation of the elements
of the operation by a set of intuitive, irreproducible processes.

19.11 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) evaluating the transformation in terms
of the quality of the results achieved, without taking into consideration
the viability of the process as a means to that end.

19.12 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) evaluating the transformation in terms
of the process, without taking into consideration the quality of the results
achieved.

19.14 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) continuing dependence of the emergent
product on the process which gives rise to it.

19.15 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) delivery of the final product to the
originally intended setting in a manner insensitive to reactions form that
setting.

19.16 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) delivery of the final product to the
originally intended setting in a manner extremely sensitive to reactions
from that setting.

19.17 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) complete rejection of any subsequent
evaluation of the process or association with it.

19.18 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus, alternating from (and to) continuing identification with the
process after its completion.

19.19 Qualitative transformation depends on harmonious transfer
of focus between extremes whilst maintaining an appropriate periodicity
for such transfers within a self-organizing pattern.

Level #20 : Significance of mutually constraining
forms

20.1 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with their avoidance of unnecessary or excessive response to each other.
To the extent that this forbearance is lacking, the significance is obscured
by the turbulent nature of that response.

20.2 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with affirmation of their affinity. To the extent that this affirmation
is lacking, the significance is obscured by the consequences of previous
unbalanced interactions.

20.3 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with their controlled interaction. To the extend that such control is lacking,
the significance is obscured by the uncontrolled nature of their interaction.

20.4 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with recognition of their sensitively supportive response to each other's
condition. To the extent that this sensitivity is lacking, the significance
is obscured by destructive interactions.

20.5 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with reconciliation of their respective characteristics. To the extent
that this reconciliation is lacking, the significance is obscured by non-recognition
or non-acceptance of some characteristics.

20.6 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with acknowledgement of inadequacies. To the extent that such acknowledgement
is lacking, the significance will be obscured by distortion of the relationship
for short-term advantage.

20.7 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with abandonment of claims to non-existent qualities. To the extent that
such claims are not relinquished, the significance will be obscured by
efforts to achieve short-term advantage.

20.8 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
withthe implicit development of principles governing their actions. To
the extent that such implicit principles are lacking, the significance
is obscured by unconstrained actions and their consequences.

20.9 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with the explicit development of principles governing their actions. To
the extent that such principles are lacking, the significance is obscured
by unconstrained actions and their consequences.

20.10 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with acknowledgement of obstacles to further development. To the extent
that such acknowledgement is lacking, the significance is obscured and
their power reinforced.

20.11 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with abandonment of efforts to increase the resources associated with either
form. To the extent that this is not achieved, the significance is obscured
by the dependence created on the resource-seeking activity.

20.12 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with reservations concerning the resources and characteristics associated
with the forms. To the extent that this reserve is lacking, the significance
is obscured by preoccupation with these attributes.

20.13 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with enthusiasm for the functions with which they are associated. To the
extend that this enthusiasm is lacking, the significance is obscured by
indifference to those functions.

20.14 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with perseverance. To the extent that such persistent attention is lacking,
the significance is obscured.

20.15 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with recognition of the constructive and destructive consequences of their
interaction. To the extent that this recognition is lacking, the significance
is obscured.

20.16 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with recollection of the multiple aspects of their interaction. To the
extent that such memories are eroded, the significance is obscured.

20.17 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with alertness to potential confusion. To the extent that such attentiveness
is lacking, the significance is obscured.

20.18 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with intelligent interest in their interaction. To the extent that such
interest is lacking, the significance is obscured.

20.19 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with balanced attention to them. To the extent that there is preoccupation
with one form, the significance is obscured.

20.20 The significance of mutually constraining forms emerges
with ability to focus on their interaction. To the extent that such focus
cannot be maintained, the significance is obscured.